Re: why lorentz transformation?

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> writes:

>"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:1125867298.801621.70520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>|
>| Androcles wrote:
>| > "David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>| > news:dffeka$1klh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>| > | "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>| >
>| > | >I don't see any 1/r^2 term in your work.
>| > |
>| > | That is about a SOLUTION of the equations.
>| >
>| > ROFLMAO!
>| > I don't see sine or cosine mentioned anywhere!
>| >
>| > | Can't you even tell the
>| > | difference between equations and their solutions, or is this
>| > distinction
>| > | too hard for your minuscule intellect?
>| >
>| > http://www.sst.ph.ic.ac.uk/angus/Lectures/compphys/node28.html
>| >
>| > alpha = c dt/dx sin(k dx)
>| >
>| > Too hard for your non-existent neuron?
>| >
>| > Androcles.
>|
>| Andro,
>| I tried discussing math with Mcanally, the SOB
>| has *** FOR BRAINS, he's a serious kook.

And yet I have worked for mathematics departments in accredited
universities for mathematics professors (and this is in the more English
type of system, where the title of professor is reserved for the highest
ranking of academics), and I have published in several physics and
mathematics journals of international standing, both as a sole author,
and in collaboration with others. Can Ken make either of those claims?
Perhaps Ken is suffering from what is described in the following paper:
www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Ken's difficulty has always been his refusal to listen to anybody with
constructive criticism, and his refusal to learn from help offered to him.
Ken's trouble is that he believes himself to be more knowledgeable than
anybody else on the matters that he discusses. Ken's trouble is that he
refuses to even contemplate the concept that his ideas may be arrant
nonsense. He has done so much work on the ideas that he will fight tooth
and nail before he will abandon them. In that, he should take a leaf from
Frege's book. When Frege was told that he had made a mistake, he had the
grace and dignity to admit his mistake. Ken has neither that grace nor
that dignity.

A few years ago, I once asked Ken to specify the postulates of quantum
mechanics. This was because he was lecturing us about his own distortion
of what he believed quantum mechanics to be. Ken always evaded the
question, and never gave a straight answer. Ken, for the record, here are
the postulates of quantum mechanics.

1. The state of an isolated system is represented by a unit vector
in a Hilbert space over the complex numbers (unimodular scalar
multiples of a vector represent the same state as the vector,
so it is more strictly accurate to specify that the state of
a system is represented by a one-dimensional subspace of a
Hilbert space, and that the unit vector is a representative of
the one-dimensional subspace). In a non-isolated system, the
state is represented by a positive semidefinite self-adjoint
linear operator with trace one on a Hilbert space over the
complex numbers.

2. The physical observables are represented by self-adjoint linear
operators on the Hilbert space.

3. The time-evolution of the state of the system is determined by
the equation i \hbar d\psi/dt = H \psi, where \psi is a unit
vector representing the state of the system, and H is a
self-adjoint linear operator on the Hilbert space (H is called
the Hamiltonian).

4. The Hilbert space for a combined system is the completed tensor
product of the individual subsystems.

5. Upon measurement of a physical observable, the value returned
is an eigenvalue of the corresponding self-adjoint operator,
and the state of the system after measurement is represented
by the corresponding unit eigenvector of the operator. The
probability of a measurement returning a specified eigenvalue
as the value of the observable is equal to the square of the
absolute value of the inner product of the unit vector
representing the current state of the system and the unit
eigenvector of the operator corresponding to the eigenvalue.
These are the rules for an operator with only a discrete
spectrum (i.e. only eigenvalues) and with only nondegenerate
eigenvalues. The case where the operator has some continuous
spectrum, and the case where there is degeneracy, are modified
appropriately.

I note that Ken feels free to throw around insults about me, but does not
feel constrained to comment that I have kill-filed him, so that it looks
like there may another reason why I do not answer him directly. This
makes Ken the most craven of cowards, and demonstrates Ken's complete and
utter lack of even the merest shred of any integrity. We always knew that
Ken was a dishonest liar. It is nice to see him confirming that with
still further unethical behaviour. But then, ethics has always been
something that Ken knows nothing about.

>| Regards
>| Ken S. Tucker

>He's one the original trolls hell-bent on the put-down, so

Not at all. I am somebody who actually knows what he is talking about.

It is interesting to see two cranks such as Ken and Androcles in such
agreement, since they would undoubtedly fight very bitterly over the
nature of reality, with each backing their own pet ideas, and giving no
quarter to the other.

>he picks on Sue as the schoolyard bully he is used
>to being.

I was never the schoolyard bully. You must have been thinking of
yourself. Your behaviour has always been that of the schoolyard bully.

> Sue can take care of herself, I know, but I can
>smack the Mac as I know you can too.

I note that you did not say that you can argue your points logically.
This is a good admission on your part, since it shows that you recognize
that you, Ken, and Sue are all incapable of actually defending your
assertions with any kind of logic.

>These pompous know-it-all cretins, moortel, Andersen,
>Schwartz, Bilge, nothingimportant, Roberts, Baez,
>and few others, all need there heads kicked in.

You mean all the people who actually understand what is going in, and who
will not allow you to continue in your delusions of competence.

>I think
>Jan Bielawski has run away. Then their are the minor
>dingbats that have no idea what they are doing but
>stand a chance if you give them a swift kick up the arse,

They know exactly what they are doing. Your very incompetence is what is
stopping you from being able to recognize your own incompetence, and it is
also stopping you from being able to recognize the competence of those
whom you are so eager to condemn. You should read
www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf since that exactly describes
your problem with physics in general, and relativity in particular.

>Ghost, bz... even Henri Wilson is eager to tell everyone
>what his "theory" is, and he should know better.

There, you are correct. Henri Wilson is just as stupid as you, Ken and
Sue. Henri should not expostulate his "Theories", since they truly are
arrant nonsense.

>Where
>these people get their egos from is a mystery,

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Look to your own
over-inflated ego before you condemn others. This is particularly so in
this case, since you ego is so much bigger than these others.

>you can't
>reason with them,

You can't reason with then because you can't reason. You have absolutely
no concept of the laws of logic.

>all there is left is to slap them.

You descend into violence, the last resort, and the ultimate admission by
yourself that you lack the intellect to be able to carry on an
intellectual conversation.

-----
.

Quantcast